Effective Drunk Driving Penalties

[MX793]

Today in the local news I saw a fatal car accident story in which a drunk, unlicensed driver ran a red light and T-boned a car pulling out on the green.  The driver of the car, a 19 year old young man, was killed.  Apparently the drunk driver had been ticketed almost a year ago for running a red while intoxicated and driving without a license.  If the user comments are correct, the driver's sentencing for last year's violation was slated for tomorrow.  My guess is that the initial license suspension/revocation, whenever that occurred, was likely also the result of a DWI.

This is now the second very serious accident around here in the past couple of months involving an unlicensed drunk driver.  The previous involved a tour bus full of people and resulted in dozens of people being injured, some severely.  In that case, a drunk driver lost control and crashed their vehicle on the interstate and then just left it there in the middle of the road as they apparently thought they could walk home.

In fact, it seems like nearly every DWI-related accident I read in the news involves the offender not having a valid license, and my suspicion is that, in most cases, the license was revoked for a previous DWI.

People often bemoan our lenient penalties for DWI in this country and state that first offense should result in a revoked license.  However, time and again I see unlicensed drunk drivers causing accidents that harm or kill others.  Obviously, suspending or revoking licenses does little to prevent someone from driving drunk, leading me to believe that that measure is largely useless.  So what is an appropriate punishment and measure to prevent repeat offenses?  I hate to raise the idea, but perhaps seizure of vehicles owned by those convicted of DWI to go along with a license suspension/revocation?  Stiff penalties to the owner of a vehicle driven by an unlicensed drunk driver to discourage anyone from lending their car to DWI-prone friends or family?

[GoCougs]

That's nothing. Not long ago in the Seattle area a drunk who was supposed to have an breathalyzer interlock mowed down a family in a crosswalk - killed the grandparents and made vegetables out of the mom and new born .

I don't think those things will do much - seizing cars and penalizing those who loan cars to drunks. It's virtually impossible to be a drunk in modern times without significant enabling, which is usually at the hands of family, and if instituted drunks will still mostly have unfettered access to cars they can drive.

Nothing modifies behavior like consequences, and the penalty for DUI/DWI are still pretty lenient. It's relatively easy to get a first offense knocked down to negligent driving, and IIRC I read the average time served for DUI-related vehicular homicide is only 4 years. We as a culture still don't want to punish DUI that harshly  .

The only path outside that is self protection to reduce risk. Drive a safer car. Stay off the roads after midnight, esp. during the high DUI times like New Years and Labor Day. Don't ever expect cars to stop if you're in a crosswalk (pedestrian right-of-way is awful itself, but that's another thread).

[MX793]

The only path outside that is self protection to reduce risk. Drive a safer car. Stay off the roads after midnight, esp. during the high DUI times like New Years and Labor Day. Don't ever expect cars to stop if you're in a crosswalk (pedestrian right-of-way is awful itself, but that's another thread).

Which is fine except I've seen a number of incidents happen well outside the usual "drunk driver" hours.  The story you posted happened in daylight hours.  The fatal crash in my original post happened before 9:30PM on a Sunday.  A few months ago a jogger was struck and killed by a drunk at 7 in the morning on a Thursday.  The jogger was wearing bright/reflective clothing, a strobe light, and running into traffic (basically, doing everything right).  A few years back an unlicensed drunk (and drug addict) put a car through the front door of a restaurant at 2:30 in the afternoon on a weekday after driving at a high rate of speed on a busy 4-lane in a commercial district.  30 hours later this same individual went head-on into another car at a little before 9PM and put the other driver in a coma.  Last year a guy (unlicensed) under the influence (drugs rather than alcohol, but same idea) went head on into a car with a whole family on board and killed the mother at 1:30 in the afternoon.

[12,000 RPM]

Stiff prison time. I never understood why vehicular manslaughter/homicide got such lenient time. You can go to jail longer for having pot than for killing somebody as long as you kill them with a car. It's pretty silly. TPTB have made it abundantly clear that safety is low on the list of concerns WRT generating driving laws. After the PIC Id love to see the whole "auto safety" industry dismantled. Seems like the only people winning are the municipalities and lawyers.

[AutobahnSHO]

Stiff prison time. I never understood why vehicular manslaughter/homicide got such lenient time.

+3  bazillion.

AND Jail time for DUI arrests even if no one is killed.

There must be an "oh crap my life is over if I drive even slightly buzzed" aspect of life.   

[Byteme]

First offense without an accident:  90 day license suspension 300 hours community service $2,500 fine.

First offense with accident:  1 year jail time, $10,000 fine, full restitution to the injured party.

Second offense in either case:  1 year jail time, $10,000 fine, full restitution to the injured party followed by two year revocation of license, car taken and sold, proceeds to charity.  Banned from car ownership for 2 years. No hardship limited license. Need to drive for your job?  You should have thought about that before you got caught. 

Third offense:  10 years jail time, no parole.   

[GoCougs]

Which is fine except I've seen a number of incidents happen well outside the usual "drunk driver" hours.  The story you posted happened in daylight hours.  The fatal crash in my original post happened before 9:30PM on a Sunday.  A few months ago a jogger was struck and killed by a drunk at 7 in the morning on a Thursday.  The jogger was wearing bright/reflective clothing, a strobe light, and running into traffic (basically, doing everything right).  A few years back an unlicensed drunk (and drug addict) put a car through the front door of a restaurant at 2:30 in the afternoon on a weekday after driving at a high rate of speed on a busy 4-lane in a commercial district.  30 hours later this same individual went head-on into another car at a little before 9PM and put the other driver in a coma.  Last year a guy (unlicensed) under the influence (drugs rather than alcohol, but same idea) went head on into a car with a whole family on board and killed the mother at 1:30 in the afternoon.

Sure, they do, my point was lessening risk - it can never be eliminated.

IMO the DUI problem is much bigger than it appears, once you throw in prescription drugs. I would not be surprised if ~20% of all drivers on the road at ay given time are DUI.

[GoCougs]

First offense without an accident:  90 day license suspension 300 hours community service $2,500 fine.

First offense with accident:  1 year jail time, $10,000 fine, full restitution to the injured party.

Second offense in either case:  1 year jail time, $10,000 fine, full restitution to the injured party followed by two year revocation of license, car taken and sold, proceeds to charity.  Banned from car ownership for 2 years. No hardship limited license. Need to drive for your job?  You should have thought about that before you got caught. 

Third offense:  10 years jail time, no parole.   

Mandatory minimums aren't good criminal law, drunks by and large aren't able to provide restitution (generally, they are total losers and/or after a few DUIs they can't afford the insurance), and 10 years is about the average time served for 2nd degree murder IIRC.

One of the huge failures of DUI enforcement have been the over emphasis on the casual drinker. Lowering BAC threshold simply only serves to snare people who are generally not the cause of the problem (the problem are drunks).

As long as WtP feel entitled to intoxicants, feel entitled to drive whenever/why ever, feel entitled to have the "disease" of addiction, and feel entitled to shyster lawyers to get them off, DUI will always be a fairly big problem.

[FoMoJo]

There's no effective measure other than incarceration.  A drunk with a suspended license will still manage to get drunk and drive unless they're locked up.  Terms, starting with the first offense, should be increased with each subsequent offense.  Being drunk, or high, is not an offense.  Being drunk, or high, and putting other people at risk is.

[Tave]

Based on the facts alleged in the OP, that driver would be prosecuted and likely convicted of 2nd degree murder in this State. We had a client who just got sent away for 8 years on almost identical facts, only he actually had a valid driver's license, his previous impaired driving-related offenses were much more remote in time, and it was unclear whether his intoxication contributed to the crash.

Stiff prison time. I never understood why vehicular manslaughter/homicide got such lenient time. You can go to jail longer for having pot than for killing somebody as long as you kill them with a car. It's pretty silly. TPTB have made it abundantly clear that safety is low on the list of concerns WRT generating driving laws. After the PIC Id love to see the whole "auto safety" industry dismantled. Seems like the only people winning are the municipalities and lawyers.

Because car accidents happen and not every one is the result of a DUI.

[Tave]

Nothing modifies behavior like consequences, and the penalty for DUI/DWI are still pretty lenient. It's relatively easy to get a first offense knocked down to negligent driving, and IIRC I read the average time served for DUI-related vehicular homicide is only 4 years. We as a culture still don't want to punish DUI that harshly  .

Damn, I need to move to Washington, none of our counties reduce DUIs. They all either plea to the charged offense or get resolved on PC motions or at trial.

[NomisR]

Corporal punishment is the key.  Public flogging in the town square so everyone know what they did. 

Cruel and unusual?  It's only unusual because it doesn't happen that often today, and cruel?  Compared to them killing someone ?  Not cruel at all, and they can still continue to work so they can actually have money to pay the people they've injured.  If they're sitting there rotting in jail, they're only a burden on society.  Like that Saudi blogger, just keep whipping them.  For the ones that killed people, they get a weekly whipping for the rest of their life, that'll teach them a lesson they'll never forget..

[MX793]

Based on the facts alleged in the OP, that driver would be prosecuted and likely convicted of 2nd degree murder in this State. We had a client who just got sent away for 8 years on almost identical facts, only he actually had a valid driver's license, his previous impaired driving-related offenses were much more remote in time, and it was unclear whether his intoxication contributed to the crash.

Because he had a prior DWI conviction from 2010 (within the past 10 years), the sentence is stiffer, but not a murder charge.  It elevated the charge from second-degree vehicular manslaughter to first degree, which has roughly double the maximum sentence.  All told, he is charged with:

1st degree vehicular manslaughter
Felony DWI
Vehicular Assault
Aggravated unlicensed operation

Plus a couple misdemeanors (including misdemeanor DWI) and some moving violations.

He was arrested last year and charged with DWI and aggravated unlicensed operation but hasn't been to court for those charges yet.  Not sure how that will play into his sentence for these crimes if convicted.

[Tave]

Because he had a prior DWI conviction from 2010 (within the past 10 years), the sentence is stiffer, but not a murder charge.  It elevated the charge from second-degree vehicular manslaughter to first degree, which has roughly double the maximum sentence.  All told, he is charged with:

1st degree vehicular manslaughter
Felony DWI
Vehicular Assault
Aggravated unlicensed operation

Plus a couple misdemeanors (including misdemeanor DWI) and some moving violations.

He was arrested last year and charged with DWI and aggravated unlicensed operation but hasn't been to court for those charges yet.  Not sure how that will play into his sentence for these crimes if convicted.

I realize that, just pointing out the differences state-to-state. Here, if you kill someone while drunk driving and you have a previous DUI conviction, the State can and often does prosecute you for murder. We also have felony death by motor vehicle, misdemeanor death by motor vehicle, and the lesser-included homicides (voluntary/involuntary).

Here's a link to one of our most recent driving-related homicide trials, where the State attempted to prove second degree murder based on excessive speed:

http://www.wlos.com/template/cgi-bin/archived.pl?type=basic&file=/news/features/top-stories/stories/archive/2014/11/cXcEFJno.xml

[AutobahnSHO]

I realize that, just pointing out the differences state-to-state. Here, if you kill someone while drunk driving and you have a previous DUI conviction, the State can and often does prosecute you for murder. We also have felony death by motor vehicle, misdemeanor death by motor vehicle, and the lesser-included homicides (voluntary/involuntary).

Here's a link to one of our most recent driving-related homicide trials, where the State attempted to prove second degree murder based on excessive speed:

http://www.wlos.com/template/cgi-bin/archived.pl?type=basic&file=/news/features/top-stories/stories/archive/2014/11/cXcEFJno.xml

Good!  130mph on public roads IS almost always excessive.

People in the US just don't care about cars and car-related stuff like they do in Europe. Over there it's a totally different mindset.

[NomisR]

Cane them all...

[MaxPower]

In fact, it seems like nearly every DWI-related accident I read in the news involves the offender not having a valid license, and my suspicion is that, in most cases, the license was revoked for a previous DWI.

Licenses get suspended for many many different reasons.  Drunk driving related suspensions are just one and most of the operating-after-suspension cases I see are suspensions for reasons other than drunk driving.

Mandatory minimums aren't good criminal law

Pussy judges around here don't see to pick up on the "minimum" part of that no matter how often we remind them.  Its like the mandatory minimum IS the mandatory sentence.  We had a recent case where a woman was a .31 in the middle of the afternoon and caused a minor fender bender.  A test that high isn't very common.  The minimum mandatory sentence for a .15 test is $500/150 day license suspension and 2 days jail.  You'd think that twice that threshold would call for a significantly higher sentence.  Instead of more jail time (which we asked for) the judge slapped on an extra 60 day license suspension.  Like that's gonna make a difference.  What was lost on the judge was she claimed she couldn't pay a higher fine because  she didn't make much money...now she can't get to her job for an extra two months so she'll have even bigger money problems. 

[AutobahnSHO]

Pussy judges around here don't see to pick up on the "minimum" part of that no matter how often we remind them.  Its like the mandatory minimum IS the mandatory sentence.  We had a recent case where a woman was a .31 in the middle of the afternoon and caused a minor fender bender.  A test that high isn't very common.  The minimum mandatory sentence for a .15 test is $500/150 day license suspension and 2 days jail.  You'd think that twice that threshold would call for a significantly higher sentence.  Instead of more jail time (which we asked for) the judge slapped on an extra 60 day license suspension.  Like that's gonna make a difference.  What was lost on the judge was she claimed she couldn't pay a higher fine because  she didn't make much money...now she can't get to her job for an extra two months so she'll have even bigger money problems. 

She'll drive anyway.

Judges used to be lawyers and probably drove drunk all the time.

[Byteme]

Pussy judges around here don't see to pick up on the "minimum" part of that no matter how often we remind them.  Its like the mandatory minimum IS the mandatory sentence.  We had a recent case where a woman was a .31 in the middle of the afternoon and caused a minor fender bender.  A test that high isn't very common.  The minimum mandatory sentence for a .15 test is $500/150 day license suspension and 2 days jail.  You'd think that twice that threshold would call for a significantly higher sentence.  Instead of more jail time (which we asked for) the judge slapped on an extra 60 day license suspension.  Like that's gonna make a difference.  What was lost on the judge was she claimed she couldn't pay a higher fine because  she didn't make much money...now she can't get to her job for an extra two months so she'll have even bigger money problems.

If the penalty is harsh enough and everyone is aware of the penalty and that it will be enforced without exception mandatory punishments will work.   

[Soup DeVille]

Drunk driving enforcement over he past two decades has been hugely effective. Yes, shit still happens. It always will.

But it happens far less than it used to.

[dazzleman]

If the penalty is harsh enough and everyone is aware of the penalty and that it will be enforced without exception mandatory punishments will work.

Nothing is 100%.  Some people will not be deterred no matter how harsh the penalty or certain the enforcement is.

That being said, harsh penalties enforced without exception will increase the effectiveness of a law.

The most effective enforcement mechanism is really social pressure.  What brought drunk driving down somewhat is that it has become increasingly socially unacceptable, at least in some circles.  In some circles, though, it's still socially acceptable and not seen as that big a deal, and that undermines enforcement.  Inconsistent penalties that aren't harsh enough contribute to this problem.

We have a tendency when we have a problem to make rules, rather than penalties, harsher, and I think this is counterproductive.  The biggest drunk driving problem comes from the habitual drunk driver who drives drunk on a regular basis, at BAC levels well above the legal limits.  These are the people who will be least influenced by halfway penalties that effectively assume good will on the part of the offender.  The person who was one drink over the limit, slipped up, and is normally law abiding, will be very spooked by any kind of penalty, but the hard core cases will not be, and they are the ones who require very harsh punishment in order to either deter them or force them off the road so they can't do more harm.

[GoCougs]

Drunk driving enforcement over he past two decades has been hugely effective. Yes, shit still happens. It always will.

But it happens far less than it used to.

I'd say mildly effective; improvement in stats (death, injury) has IMO more come at improvements in cars, roads and healthcare tech.

Most of who is out there DUI and causing wrecks are drunks, and drunks by and large don't respond to the threat of (fairly mild) consequences. If they did, they wouldn't be drunks.

In sum total I'd say DUI is about the same. Any decrease in drunk driving has been replaced with an increase in DUI of other substances, particularly prescription pills (and soon to include weed).

[dazzleman]

I'd say mildly effective; improvement in stats (death, injury) has IMO more come at improvements in cars, roads and healthcare tech.

Most of who is out there DUI and causing wrecks are drunks, and drunks by and large don't respond to the threat of (fairly mild) consequences. If they did, they wouldn't be drunks.

In sum total I'd say DUI is about the same. Any decrease in drunk driving has been replaced with an increase in DUI of other substances, particularly prescription pills (and soon to include weed).

I tend to agree.  As I said above, the real hard core drunks respond only to the harshest penalties.  For people like that, jail time is necessary when they put lives in danger.

[MaxPower]

I tend to agree.  As I said above, the real hard core drunks respond only to the harshest penalties.  For people like that, jail time is necessary when they put lives in danger.

So what's a hard core drunk? A housewife with no criminal history who tests at a .31?  That high a test screams lifelong alcoholic but a judge will never put someone like that away. DUI is one of the few crimes that middle and upper class people committ or are ar risk of committing. And trust me, they can't go to jail.  It's easy to see someone who firts the profile to jail, not so much when it's your neighbor.

[NomisR]

So what's a hard core drunk? A housewife with no criminal history who tests at a .31?  That high a test screams lifelong alcoholic but a judge will never put someone like that away. DUI is one of the few crimes that middle and upper class people committ or are ar risk of committing. And trust me, they can't go to jail.  It's easy to see someone who firts the profile to jail, not so much when it's your neighbor.

Like I've been repeating over and over again.. cane them... maybe not for the first time offender but definitely the repeat offenders and ESPECIALLY the ones that gets into an accident.  Couple hundred dollar fine could just be a slap on the wrist for someone well off, and even license suspension can be ignored as long as they don't get caught again.  But when they're in the own square getting their asses whooped in public, they'll think twice about doing it again. 

[FoMoJo]

So what's a hard core drunk? A housewife with no criminal history who tests at a .31?  That high a test screams lifelong alcoholic but a judge will never put someone like that away. DUI is one of the few crimes that middle and upper class people committ or are ar risk of committing. And trust me, they can't go to jail.  It's easy to see someone who firts the profile to jail, not so much when it's your neighbor.

Drunks, especially drunk drivers, go to jail up here.

[Rupert]

Tangentially related:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html

[MaxPower]

Drunks, especially drunk drivers, go to jail up here.

not sure how much time you spend at your local courthouse, but I spend a lot of time at mine and see how often run-of-the-mill cases can get light sentences for a wide variety of reasons.

[FoMoJo]

not sure how much time you spend at your local courthouse, but I spend a lot of time at mine and see how often run-of-the-mill cases can get light sentences for a wide variety of reasons.

Don't spend any time in a courthouse and I hope I never will.  Perhaps things have changed, in the last 50 years or so, but my father was incarcerated, 90 days I think, for being drunk...and he wasn't even driving.